If the new 55-250mm STM is as good as the 18-55mm STM, will be the most cost-effective for APS-C. The weakness of the current model is the mechanical construction, and this seems to have been greatly improved in version STM except mounting that remains plastic. However, for the weight of the lens, an assembly of metal is not essential. I do not understand how Canon continues to make lenses like 75-300mm, that no owner of full-frame camera would buy. Perhaps there is market for an EF-S 135-500mm ... Who knows. This is my first post. Sorry for bad English google.

Great point, it's a light lens so plastic should be fine, I remember EOS cameras with plastic lens mounts!!!

Are you saying that there were bodies with EOS bayonet plastic? I started using Canon EOS in 2002 and never saw a bayonet plastic body. At that time, my dream of consumption was a 28-105mm F4-5.6 USM I bought some time later, and she had plastic bayonet, but I never found it a problem.

2. Disagree - pick up a 17-55 and a 24-105, or a 50/1.4 and a 50/1.2L, and 'L build quality' is obvious.

Yeah, but pick up any of the fast USM primes and say a 200 f2.8 or 135 f2.8 and the difference isn't so apparent.

The L's are properly designed as tools for a given job, so it's not to be unexpected that they have individual characteristics, some are state of the art and have everything that could be reasonably expected from a lens by a working professional. Others are robust precision tools with the money spent where it matters rather on redundant features like say AF on a TSE or IS on a fisheye...

My gripe is not about the general greatness of L lenses and the expectation that the red ring rightfully inspires, it's just that as a parameter of comparison, it's not the greatness, it's the general bit that bothers me.

To decry a budget lens ('gateway' was spot on) as being or not being 'L quality' just isn't all that useful.

It's blind submission to marketing speak.

I've came up with two things for my list...

1. Red Ring2. EF mount

Dang, there are other lenses with EF mounts that aren't L's.

Sheeeeeet (to quote Clay Davis)

1. Red Ring.

I'm aware I'm being a boring pedantic pr1ck here. I just don't know what L quality means. Well I do. But really, literally, we don't. Canon doesn't. As their EOS Works statement belies.

It shouldn't be so easy a thing to say, if it isn't so easy to define.

And it shouldn't really be applied to a lens like the 55-250 STM in any terms. It's just not helpful at all to anybody.

paul13walnut5

I'm just thinking back to my 50e, I couldn't quite place if it was metal or that metal effect paint. It had that champagne lustre (which was actually quite nice) from this distance looking back I couldn't remember if that was a trim feature or indicative of the build of the camera.

I remember it was a chunky bugger, bigger than my 5 (AE2), I can't recall ever truely falling in love with my 50e..Although when I bought it I thought the switchgear for functions was briliant.

The other thing to remember is that not all elements are created equal. For example, Canon uses four types of aspherical elements, ranging from moulded plastic at the low end to ground and polished glass at the top; replica elements (resin layered on glass) and moulded glass are in between. So, while the EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens has an aspherical element as does the 85L II, the former's is moulded plastic whereas the latter's is ground and polished glass.

It seems you think there should be a list of features exclusive to L-series lenses, but that's not how it works. 'L quality' is a gestalt of image quality, features (f/number, number of aperture blades and circularity, etc.), and build/construction. That, and a red ring.

The other thing to remember is that not all elements are created equal. For example, Canon uses four types of aspherical elements, ranging from moulded plastic at the low end to ground and polished glass at the top; replica elements (resin layered on glass) and moulded glass are in between. So, while the EF-S 18-55 IS kit lens has an aspherical element as does the 85L II, the former's is moulded plastic whereas the latter's is ground and polished glass.

It seems you think there should be a list of features exclusive to L-series lenses, but that's not how it works. 'L quality' is a gestalt of image quality, features (f/number, number of aperture blades and circularity, etc.), and build/construction. That, and a red ring.

2. Disagree - pick up a 17-55 and a 24-105, or a 50/1.4 and a 50/1.2L, and 'L build quality' is obvious.

Yeah, but pick up any of the fast USM primes and say a 200 f2.8 or 135 f2.8 and the difference isn't so apparent.

The L's are properly designed as tools for a given job, so it's not to be unexpected that they have individual characteristics, some are state of the art and have everything that could be reasonably expected from a lens by a working professional. Others are robust precision tools with the money spent where it matters rather on redundant features like say AF on a TSE or IS on a fisheye...

My gripe is not about the general greatness of L lenses and the expectation that the red ring rightfully inspires, it's just that as a parameter of comparison, it's not the greatness, it's the general bit that bothers me.

To decry a budget lens ('gateway' was spot on) as being or not being 'L quality' just isn't all that useful.

It's blind submission to marketing speak.

I've came up with two things for my list...

1. Red Ring2. EF mount

Dang, there are other lenses with EF mounts that aren't L's.

Sheeeeeet (to quote Clay Davis)

1. Red Ring.

I'm aware I'm being a boring pedantic pr1ck here. I just don't know what L quality means. Well I do. But really, literally, we don't. Canon doesn't. As their EOS Works statement belies.

It shouldn't be so easy a thing to say, if it isn't so easy to define.

And it shouldn't really be applied to a lens like the 55-250 STM in any terms. It's just not helpful at all to anybody.

I did of course mean the 135mm f2.0 rather the the f2.8, but in every other regard, you are talking about internal specifics rather than build quality, which is where I picked up from.

I'm going to have to let this go. I thought I was being discursive with an enthusiast. I've actually picked a fight with a zealot hypnotised by the red ring. You win.

My point really boils down to the fact that L-series lenses are 'better' in one or more ways than their non-L counterparts. Better in one or more ways doesn't mean better in all ways, and in fact, they're often not better in all ways - and if you factor in price (and/or value - 50L, I'm looking at you), they're never better in all ways.

Specifically regarding build quality they are generally better, even if the differences are mainly/only internal (heavier glass elements require more robust support, etc.).

Even if we can't specifically define 'L build quality,' I hope we can agree that the new 55-250 doesn't have it, and I think we can also agree that no one should expect it to, and that doesn't change the fact that it appears to be an excellent lens and a great value.

When I first gor the 10-22 it seemed like L quality build compared to the 18-55 kit lens. Then I got the 17-40L and realized what actual L build quality was. Pretty sure I could use the 17-40 as some kind of crude weapon in a fight and it would come out less bruised and bashed that I would!

I forgot why are we arguing about L build quality? If you think non L is fine try putting it in a regular backpack, unpadded with no case and throw in a few cans and then go for a jog up a mountain. Might survive. Might not. But you'd be worried right? Not so much with the L.

This was not aimed at Paul just everyone on this thread because I think we lost track of what we were meant to be discussing.